| This study is motivated in part by the contradictory findings on the impacts of knowledge management systems in organizations. While various theoretical, definitional, and methodological approaches have been suggested to address these contradictory findings, few studies have applied these ideas to subsequent empirical investigations of knowledge management systems.; To address this, I use an interpretive case study focused on the knowledge management practices and systems employed by intellectual property lawyers at one site of a large Canadian law firm. Interview, document and observational data were collected during a 15-month period from September 2004 to November 2005. Two research questions were investigated. (1) How do intellectual property lawyers use knowledge management systems to structure the practice of patenting and (2) what forces enhance and impede the knowledge management systems of these professionals?; The findings indicate that the lawyers employed five genre systems to structure the textual dynamics of patenting. The genre systems included (a) customer relationship management, (b) patentability, (c) drafting, (d) accounting, and (e) filing. In addition, the lawyers employed four technologies-in-practice to structure their use of knowledge management technologies. The technologies-in-practice included (a) collaboration, (b) delegated use, (c) conversion, and (d) improvisation. The genre systems enacted by the professionals were reciprocally implicated in structuring the technologies-in-practice.; The lawyer's knowledgeable activity emerged around various contested spaces indicated by the genre systems and technologies-in-practice. The contested spaces emerge within an institutionalized context characterized by the sedimentation of two archetypes. On the one hand, there were strong influences of professionalism and partnership, while on the other hand there were formal management and business practices. Within these archetypes various current and proposed systems were present, particularly localized and centralized systems, the current often representing local autonomy, while the centralized systems representing firm-wide objectives. Implications for practitioners and researchers on alternate approaches to systems design and reconceptualizing the consequences of knowledge management systems are discussed. |
